AFL players can’t win PR battle on pay rise

I'll also add that if AFL gets paid more (which is still considerably less percentage of revenue compared to other professional sports around the world) I highly doubt that AFL will return back to the amatuers day __ It's true that fans are the lifeblood of the game (such as customers are the lifeblood of any business). However, who has attract the fans to attend the game and pay the money. IF more fans attend the game or more fans watch the game on TV. Shouldn't the employee responsible in that achievement be rewarded for that That could be the marketers, administrators, coaches but that could also be the players as well.

I hate celebrity culture. I absolutely despise it and the way people act like they are better then normal people. However just because I don't think they are better then normal people, that doesn't mean I don't think they deserve to earn more money than normal people. The reason why players deserve to get paid more then the average joe is because they are employee of an industry and assisting that industry to make millions of dollars. I don't believe that rich people are better human beings than poor people. Far from that actually but I do believe that for the most part (unless people make money out of unethical and illegal means) then they deserve more money than poorer people. The average joe aren't working in company and business that is generating that much wealth. If the average joe wants that kind of money, they have to develop the skills necessary to be hired by a company that generates that much wealth. The AFL players do, the average people don't. Now I believe that the government should intervene in the free market to further public good (yes I consider myself left of centre by the way), however players being paid a lot of money is hardly an issue that I would want government intervention in and therefore shouldn't be an issue for public to vote on. It's not really a democratic issue.

Are the AFL players payed too much? I don't know. I'm not privy to internal business bottoms line for me to make that judgement. However I'm just rubbishing the argument that people make that because AFL players are already well off then they shouldn't ask for a pay rise. I think that's absolutely garbage For example - Let say the wage bill of a company is 5 million. The company rakes in 20 million in profit that year. The next year, the company may make 30 million but the wage bill remains the same. The year later they make 40 million and the wage bill remains the same. Even if the worker on that company rakes in 200 k a year which is very well off compared to the average joe. They have the right to demand a pay rise to be rewarded for the success of the company. I think it is exploitation to just say they shouldn't complain as they are already well off as the result of that means owners pocket large amounts of profit without giving a fair share to the employee. Essentially that's what I'm seeing with the AFLPA (of course the numbers involve are different) in demanding a pay rise and it is within their rights to do that and they shouldn't be crucified. So I recognise that administrators, marketeers etc deserve a cut of the money. However the argument that if you are already well off, that you shouldn't demand a pay rise is garbage because that's just means the owners/administrators are pocketing money of your hard work.

Yes Dasilva, but would that logic still remain true if the code was struggling again (like in the 1980s/early 90s) maybe one of the old hands here can tell us the financial history of the code again ;) Exploitation? It is after all a business running a club/roster isn't it? You don't get as well paid if there's doubt your players are getting as well paid as they think they ought...it's really a symbiotic relationship between contract-writer and contract-signer. And what about those of us living off the speculation of the AFL itself...who have granted us more games of Australian Football than we might otherwise have gotten. Without us phantom fans...well the AFL would have to bend to any and all player whims. In a sense I'd have to say i have more loyalty to the AFL than even to the clubs I support in this regard. But to give the AFL and its professional admins more money for doing a good job is not something you can really do for the players. Ideally the surplus money should be used to help phantom fans like me :)

But isn't that part of this difficult culture (or a difficulty with cultural conflicts) that's arisen out of what really has to be termed a pseudo-amateurist spirit...that professionalism is supposed (ideally) to be only about compensation, and that one's loyalties ought to be solely with the gam/code and not with the individual. Whereas culture has changed radically and now it's all about the individual. True sport is a bastion of conservatism in this regard, but the system now really works on a one-to-one (socio-cultural) 'contractual' basis.

Yeah the system we have is starting to sound more communist isn't it ;)

No I'm sorry that argument is just getting to me now :( I respect your very close eye-witnessing opinion, I really do...but how is compensation for injury the right approach to paying for someone to put on a show. Surely the professional structure should be paying for something like further education not in case one's career ends quickly, but even if it goes the full hog. Sure paying for a degree would cost the managers heaps...but its more that received logic, that the game should compensate which peeses me off...really the game should develop growth (like they've been doing outside just football, in community initiatives) in terms of not just after-football...but simultaneously at the same time as football.

But Democracy really isn't about the high-fliers, sad but true fact! It's about securing that which is for the public's good (that's right a free market approach to morality is part of the problem too isn't it?) In the United States for example, enough people seem to be getting enough of the pie (and I say seem to be as of course their system seems to be very VERY skimpy on getting that which is in the public good.) Of course we can't entirely leave it to democracy to decide how much players should get, as then there would be no incentive, but why can't we get away from this idea that players are inherently better just because they play their game professionally. Surely being somewhere in between the corinthian spirit and the celluloid spirit isn't too hard for such an otherwise democratic culture.

Sorry y'all you have commented above me, I'll read your responses and comment on them next ;) I'm sorry the entire premise of this argument seems to me to be wrong headed. Why do the players deserve more dosh? And I'm not just against people being paid what is fair by any stretch and I'm certainly not saying this because I feel they should be everymen/women. I say this because they get enough now. Have done for a while. Demetriou in fact should be getting less and so you shouldn't use him as the measuring stick or as any kind of stick, even the kind who hits you in the head! How much do they REALLY need? The money should be going into expansion or failing that actually rewarding those who play the game for fun...but perhaps aren't marketable as it were. Yeah what about a more public service approach for the King of the Yarra football code.

I thnk you are spot on with the post career idea. This is the Canberra way. Wage rises for politicians are never popular, so hide the beef in the superannuation.

I don't think that administrators/ marketmen/owners etc shouldn't get the cut of the money I just don't think players should be considered greedy for wanting a pay rise. I'm just think it's disgusting that the public get all "tall poppy' over players getting more money then them when if those people get their way. It'll just mean rich owners/administrators horde the money from their self and ripping off the workers. The players should be able to fight for better pay without being considered greedy in the process.

"Our sports stars must have an everyman quality – think Pat Rafter’s bloke-next-door likeability or Shane Warne’s larrikinism." Except one of the first things Warne did was buy a Ferrari. I believe it was blue, which has always disappointed me, as I think that red Ferrari's are by far the best. :D Anyway, my point is that sports stars being wealthy, buying expensive toys, and living a life that most of us can only dream of, is not limited to the Michael Clarkes of the world, as even those that we deem as larrikins. Rafter, himself, cited his primary residence in Bermuda for tax reasons. As such, I think the idea that our stars must have an 'everyman quality' and can't be seen to be wealthy is misplaced.

You might not pay for it but if the administrator work was not done, then you wouldn't be watching it - or at least you would be watching an inferior version. Do you really want to see a group of well paid players at amateur clubs? Not likely. The clubs build their brand through a large team of people and the players are only one part of that. Additionally, if you want to continue to build the brand and ensure it continues to grow in the future, a lot of the money should be going straight to the grassroots. If it had not in the past, maybe half of the players wouldn't be in the profession. They might haven taken up chess instead and be stuck in a mundane day job. A lot of money has been invested in to the development of players and it's only fair that a lot of their work goes back in to developing the next group of elites.

I can't really pretend to have any knowledge of how money in AFL is specifically distributed but I think it's a bit simple to just say that the players put on the show. So much goes on behind the scenes in grassroots, player development, marketing, administration etc. All of these aspects go in to making AFL as popular as it is. Personally, I have always been of the belief that the grassroots are far more important than the actual players. The players exist in any code only because they were grabbed at the grassroots level. If I was given a choice, I would always pick subsidising junior players over paying the "elite" (with in reason). Beyond that, how do the players think they get on every week? It's the trainers, coaches, administrators, backroom staff, club CEOs, marketing departments etc that put all the grunt work in to organising a national sporting competition. Yet, none of those people (bar the coach and CEO) are likely to be on a salary that is even remotely comparable. Is that fair? I don't know if there is an aspect of jealousy to my opinion but I just find it very hard to sympathise with young men earning $180k to kick a ball. I think the headline of the article is perfect. Even if they do deserve, it's not a PR battle they will win because of people like me.

I appreciate what you're saying Michael - but we shouldn't tolerate it being just a PR battle. What makes it a PR battle? The mainstream media, with their 7 sec TV sound bites, fuelling the simple minded punter sitting on his couch . Any decent analysis happens at a completely different level, Like in these forums. Not many media operatives have run businesses, and grasp the concept of economic equilibrium, The trick is to take the emotion out of the argument, (like any negotiation, a new job or an old wife) and discuss it as rationally as you can. ) . You can easily mount a rational argument for the players's to be paid more (it's 241K per year average by the way) .And it has nothing to do what the average 22 year-old chippie earns, and very very little to do what Demetreiou or whatever his name earns. It's about the income the sport / the movie /the business / the company generates and what it s fair and reasonable portion. Too big a portion, and the economics dictate that the industry isn;t viable /cohesive/ functional - what ever words you want to use. The % of fans get disenfranchised, and stay away. Too little - much much too little - and the other side of the equation is out of kilter. I'd like to see some portion of the "new money" used to pump up the "post career" super funds of the players. Give them one less complexity in their life after the "full time siren". But it's a good debate.

Compared to all professional sports models I know the AFL share of revenue to players is by far the lowest... I wonder aloud when AD when he went after his two NRL players, did he spark player interest in their value ... This is a real test for AD and the players association ... I have no idea the outcome and do not have the knowledge to offer a tho of which way it will go... however from the outside looking in I find it interesting...

Personally I think the way we view sportsman is out of date and unfair I do think this is a twisted version of tall poppy syndrome I mean twisted because it seems like society would prefer money to be distributed to fat cats in suits instead of the players that people pay to watch. You would think that real tall poppy syndrome would be trying to tear down the owners, administrators etc If I was a muso and the CD sell millions of record. I may well have a decent amount of money out of that. However if I found out that large percentage of that sale goes to the administrators/owners/advertisement etc. I have the right to demand a receive a larger percentage of the sale and negotiate with the company to receive it without being called greedy especially when people paid money to get entertain by the musicians not the administrators. I take the same principles toward sports player. It's not about whether they are everyday people or above society etc.

It doesn't matter if the AFL players are well renumerated compared to the average joe. they are working in an industry that is generating millions of dollars out of their hard work and they have a right to demand a higher cut from it especially when the industry is more profitable than ever. What's important is whether they get a fair cut of the revenue generated from the game. Even if you are well paid working for a company. If you realised that your company has become even more successful on the back of your work and your company has increased in profit. You would want your hard work in improving the company bottom line to be recognised by taking in the share of that success. Otherwise your work is just being exploited by the boss. It seems incredibly anti-worker for people to complain about sportsman in general earning too much money when the industry are generating millions of dollars and the money has to be distributed somewhere. it seems to me that people would be more happy if the majority of the revenue and money earn is distributed to faceless administrator and/or owners of the club instead of players whose work is what people pay to see. We don't pay to watch administrator work in the background we pay to see the players in action. I would like to think that we would prefer the money to be distributed to the source of entertainment instead of people in the background who we couldn't care less about

There should be no set pay increase, just get rid of the salary cap and then they will all get what they deserve. Simple. It works in um what's it called???? Oh yeah every other profession on the planet! -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.

I don't understand this argument about the clubs being broke. They are only broke because the television revenue and key sponsorship revenue goes to the AFL first. The 'handouts' that clubs without a naturally large supporter base receive come from revenue that is earned by the game that these clubs play. If you look at the ratings for some clubs individually, you don't get the whole picture. The game must be healthy, and there must be a vibrant competitive competition, before the high supporter base clubs can be successful. It doesn't matter how many supporters Collingwood have, they won't keep them for long if they only play West Coast, Hawthorn and Essendon.